Law School, Science Grad Program, LSAT, and GRE Forum

[chicagoburger]

Real Story 1:

An applicant applied law school with 155 and 3.5 one year and failed to get into any target schools.
He sit back and studied the shit out of that LSAT and got 168. Next year he got in all schools with full rides.

The applicant is still the same person with same intelligent level and personal achievement. All of a sudden, law schools believe he is a much better candidate based on one single test.

Real Story 2:

An applicant applied to top science PhD program. GRE is the required entrance test. He loves Physics but doesn't really speak much English as an international student. He didn't study and scored a 350 out of 800 (bottom 10%). Guess what, top schools don't care about his low score in English. He is showered with full scholarship PhD offers.

Science programs look at your true academic potential and only treat the GRE as a formality. The person could have wasted so much time and money to try to ace the GRE English subject.

[zot1]

I thought I hated the lsat quite a bit, but you got me beat. It's not fair, but it is what it is. You want to change it? Posting on TLS about it won't do that.

[UVA2B]

Your lame hypothetical proves it, law school admissions has no idea what it's doing! Down with the white tower academics perpetuating this falsehood that one test and one four year degree program is indicative of success in the profession!

No one can rightfully claim that the LSAT/uGPA are dispositive of abilities in the legal profession. That's why there are regularly anecdotal success stories from typical lesser institutions. And some people are indeed making good decisions going to otherwise suspect schools (they don't know it at the time because of so much variability, but there will be success stories from many lower ranked schools that become good decisions). But stop with your weak, lamenting this test BS and how it shouldn't count for your success. It doesn't, but it does put statistical barriers for that person discounting the LSAT to achieve the traditional metrics of legal success.

But go ahead and become this generation's Joe Jamail, we believe in you!

[uion1715]

Frankly, I would take the GPA/LSAT-based admission model 100 out of 100 times over the soft-based/undergrad model of admission. There are just so much unknown, so much subjectivity about the latter that I think it would drive me insane. Law School admission is much more straightforward and easier to prepare for/deal with.

[A. Nony Mouse]

1) you posting all the problems with the lsat isn't going to make a difference to how it's used in admissions or to what you have to do to get into a good law school
2) you're not coming up with any points about the LSAT that haven't already been raised many times
3) your analogy is bad, because a) law school/the legal profession require better English for success than a physics PhD program does, b) the GRE is required by all subject areas and thus isn't tailored to each subject's needs (you can bet the candidate for an English program isn't getting in with a 350, and you can bet the physics program doesn't treat the math portion as a formality), unlike the LSAT which is targeted at one subject area, and c) a physics PhD program can look at the undergrad's actual performance in physics to assess their potential. Law schools can't do that because law isn't an undergrad major and it's not taught at all like undergrad.

There are plenty of problems with relying so heavily on the LSAT but railing about them is a waste of energy. Go study. Be the applicant in real story one.

[cavalier1138]

Man, you must have hated the analogies questions on the SAT.

[Ferrisjso]

Real Story 1:

An applicant applied law school with 155 and 3.5 one year and failed to get into any target schools.
He sit back and studied the shit out of that LSAT and got 168. Next year he got in all schools with full rides.

The applicant is still the same person with same intelligent level and personal achievement. All of a sudden, law schools believe he is a much better candidate based on one single test.

Real Story 2:

An applicant applied to top science PhD program. GRE is the required entrance test. He loves Physics but doesn't really speak much English as an international student. He didn't study and scored a 350 out of 800 (bottom 10%). Guess what, top schools don't care about his low score in English. He is showered with full scholarship PhD offers.

Science programs look at your true academic potential and only treat the GRE as a formality. The person could have wasted so much time and money to try to ace the GRE English subject.

At first I thought this was sending me a message because those are basically my exact stats! Not sure if I missed "all" of my reach schools yet. Good work though, you're doing a service. I don't think the LSAT should be abolished despite favoring some students over others, I just think it should either be weighed equally or less equal than GPA because the timing of the test is a severe impediment to many students who like to be perfectionist's. They do need an equalizing factor to add context to the GPA(which is different at different at different schools) and while I think the LSAT right now does a horrible job of this, something does need to play that role(maybe a timeless more difficult LSAT?) Yeah it should either be weighed slightly less like GPA is now or equal, it's crazy that the single most important factor for law school admissions is a test that doesn't test you on legal content in 35 minutes! Logic games section I can see the rational but the other ones? Noooooooo.

[Baby Gaga]

As someone who got into those top science PhD programs, I can tell you that they don't care about GRE English at all but the Math GRE is very important and if you don't ace it you won't get in at all. Real story 3: My friend had amazing research experience in neuroscience, top grades and great recommendations. She had trouble with trigonometry - which she hadn't done in years - and got a few questions wrong, dropping her GRE (Math the only one that matters) to 680/800. She didn't get in anywhere. She took a year off redid the GRE and got a 730. Same exact student. Full tuition plus stipend from Berkeley and she's going to graduate this year.

[goldenbear2020]

As someone who got into those top science PhD programs, I can tell you that they don't care about GRE English at all but the Math GRE is very important and if you don't ace it you won't get in at all. Real story 3: My friend had amazing research experience in neuroscience, top grades and great recommendations. She had trouble with trigonometry - which she hadn't done in years - and got a few questions wrong, dropping her GRE (Math the only one that matters) to 680/800. She didn't get in anywhere. She took a year off redid the GRE and got a 730. Same exact student. Full tuition plus stipend from Berkeley and she's going to graduate this year.

+1. The median math scores for top 10 science and engineering PhD programs are usually around 780 to 800 (out of 800), compared to verbal scores in the high 500s to low 600s.

[laqueredup]

1. English does not matter as much to a science phd as a law student.

2. A PhD program actually gets something out of you (research, cheap labor) other than tuition and statistics for recruiting more students to pay tuition. (lsat/ gpa medians for rankings or employability at big firms or clerkships, which would be highly dependant on English skills).

3. Sad but true

[chicagoburger]

I thought I hated the lsat quite a bit, but you got me beat. It's not fair, but it is what it is. You want to change it? Posting on TLS about it won't do that.

I sure hope to change it.
Regardless what I believe, I will retake to ace this test.

And I am sure the admission committees hate this test too. They want to admit students with true potential that is never measurable by LSAT.

[cavalier1138]

I thought I hated the lsat quite a bit, but you got me beat. It's not fair, but it is what it is. You want to change it? Posting on TLS about it won't do that.

I sure hope to change it.
Regardless what I believe, I will retake to ace this test.

And I am sure the admission committees hate this test too. They want to admit students with true potential that is never measurable by LSAT.

Yes, I'm sure that adcomms would prefer to be able to perform the Vulcan mind meld with each applicant, but since they can't do that, they have to use the best measures they have.

The LSAT is a long way from perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than undergrad GPA for evaluating a candidate's potential.

[zot1]

I thought I hated the lsat quite a bit, but you got me beat. It's not fair, but it is what it is. You want to change it? Posting on TLS about it won't do that.

I sure hope to change it.
Regardless what I believe, I will retake to ace this test.

And I am sure the admission committees hate this test too. They want to admit students with true potential that is never measurable by LSAT.

I didn't ace the lsat and I'm doing alright. Don't dwell on things. Just keep moving, man.

[chicagoburger]

I thought I hated the lsat quite a bit, but you got me beat. It's not fair, but it is what it is. You want to change it? Posting on TLS about it won't do that.

I sure hope to change it.
Regardless what I believe, I will retake to ace this test.

And I am sure the admission committees hate this test too. They want to admit students with true potential that is never measurable by LSAT.

Yes, I'm sure that adcomms would prefer to be able to perform the Vulcan mind meld with each applicant, but since they can't do that, they have to use the best measures they have.

The LSAT is a long way from perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than undergrad GPA for evaluating a candidate's potential.

3 months study to overwrite 4 or more years of hard work and experience?
Let alone, according to TLSers, this test is easy if you can afford the time and money to practice it.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

As someone who got into those top science PhD programs, I can tell you that they don't care about GRE English at all but the Math GRE is very important and if you don't ace it you won't get in at all. Real story 3: My friend had amazing research experience in neuroscience, top grades and great recommendations. She had trouble with trigonometry - which she hadn't done in years - and got a few questions wrong, dropping her GRE (Math the only one that matters) to 680/800. She didn't get in anywhere. She took a year off redid the GRE and got a 730. Same exact student. Full tuition plus stipend from Berkeley and she's going to graduate this year.

+1. The median math scores for top 10 science and engineering PhD programs are usually around 780 to 800 (out of 800), compared to verbal scores in the high 500s to low 600s.

Seeing this makes me feel retarded for not shopping around for other PhD programs when I was getting my Masters. I had a 760 math 750 english.

[laqueredup]

I thought I hated the lsat quite a bit, but you got me beat. It's not fair, but it is what it is. You want to change it? Posting on TLS about it won't do that.

I sure hope to change it.
Regardless what I believe, I will retake to ace this test.

And I am sure the admission committees hate this test too. They want to admit students with true potential that is never measurable by LSAT.

Yes, I'm sure that adcomms would prefer to be able to perform the Vulcan mind meld with each applicant, but since they can't do that, they have to use the best measures they have.

The LSAT is a long way from perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than undergrad GPA for evaluating a candidate's potential.

3 months study to overwrite 4 or more years of hard work and experience?
Let alone, according to TLSers, this test is easy if you can afford the time and money to practice it.

Yes, because GPA is far from a standard measure of how well you performed over the course of your studies. What a GPA means varies widely by major and school. The LSAT scores the same thing for everyone. Yes the test may have some biases that should be overcome. But GPAs do as well.

[cavalier1138]

3 months study to overwrite 4 or more years of hard work and experience?
Let alone, according to TLSers, this test is easy if you can afford the time and money to practice it.

Yes, because GPA is far from a standard measure of how well you performed over the course of your studies. What a GPA means varies widely by major and school. The LSAT scores the same thing for everyone. Yes the test may have some biases that should be overcome. But GPAs do as well.

Pretty much this.

The LSAT also tests specific skills that law school requires. LSAT and undergrad GPA combined is the best predictor of law school performance, but between the two, LSAT has a higher correlation with law school performance. And for people who take time off between undergrad and law school, it's a much more accurate indicator of present aptitude. Also, I studied for the LSAT while working two jobs for a total cost of about $45 (whatever they charge for their generic prep book and a set of extra practice tests). So spare me the sob story about how only the idle rich can actually prepare for the test.

More importantly, the LSAT doesn't "overwrite" anything. If you have a 2.0, you're still kind of screwed in the admissions process, regardless of how high your LSAT is. Your GPA isn't erased by your LSAT, but the test gets more weight in the process.

[zhenders]

Itt, the OP is upset that law school cares about different things than science PhD programs. OP, you're clearly not a law student. If you were, you'd realize that 99% of law school is a combination of reading comprehension, logical analysis, and argument by analogy. Does law school look just like the LSAT? No, of course not. But entry tests are about basic skills transfer: if you can learn the LSAT, you have a good chance of being able to learn legal reading and analysis.

[chicagoburger]

Itt, the OP is upset that law school cares about different things than science PhD programs. OP, you're clearly not a law student. If you were, you'd realize that 99% of law school is a combination of reading comprehension, logical analysis, and argument by analogy. Does law school look just like the LSAT? No, of course not. But entry tests are about basic skills transfer: if you can learn the LSAT, you have a good chance of being able to learn legal reading and analysis.

Those basic skills you mentioned are required by ANY graduate program.
Following your logic, all graduate program should require such test.
Law schools don't know how to break the slave chains from the US News ranking.
Being critical of LSAT while studying is different from being numb while worshiping LSAT.

[chicagoburger]

Itt, the OP is upset that law school cares about different things than science PhD programs. OP, you're clearly not a law student. If you were, you'd realize that 99% of law school is a combination of reading comprehension, logical analysis, and argument by analogy. Does law school look just like the LSAT? No, of course not. But entry tests are about basic skills transfer: if you can learn the LSAT, you have a good chance of being able to learn legal reading and analysis.

Those basic skills you mentioned are required by ANY graduate program.
Following your logic, all graduate programs should require such test.
Law schools don't know how to break the slave chains from the US News ranking.
Being critical of LSAT while studying is different from being numb while worshiping LSAT.

[cavalier1138]

Itt, the OP is upset that law school cares about different things than science PhD programs. OP, you're clearly not a law student. If you were, you'd realize that 99% of law school is a combination of reading comprehension, logical analysis, and argument by analogy. Does law school look just like the LSAT? No, of course not. But entry tests are about basic skills transfer: if you can learn the LSAT, you have a good chance of being able to learn legal reading and analysis.

Those basic skills you mentioned are required by ANY graduate program.
Following your logic, all graduate program should require such test.
Law schools don't know how to break the slave chains from the US News ranking.
Being critical of LSAT while studying is different from being numb while worshiping LSAT.

Actually, those skills are not required by any graduate program to the degree that the LSAT tests them. That's why other tests aren't considered as substitutes.

Look, I get that you're incredibly upset that schools won't admit you based on your repeated assurances that you're just the smartest little cookie in the jar, but you haven't proposed anything remotely close to a decent alternative to the LSAT.

[chicagoburger]

Actually, those skills are not required by any graduate program to the degree that the LSAT tests them. That's why other tests aren't considered as substitutes.

Look, I get that you're incredibly upset that schools won't admit you based on your repeated assurances that you're just the smartest little cookie in the jar, but you haven't proposed anything remotely close to a decent alternative to the LSAT.

I have applied to many T1 schools. Most of them offered me scholarship even though my numbers are way below both medians. That tells me many schools are actually trying to admit students beyond the numbers as best as they could. To those schools, I appreciate their efforts and willingness to take the risk by admitting me.

However, I don't appreciate your condescending attitude and your worship of LSAT God. I don't need to propose an alternative in order nor your permission to criticize the stupid test.

[chicagoburger]

Actually, those skills are not required by any graduate program to the degree that the LSAT tests them. That's why other tests aren't considered as substitutes.

Look, I get that you're incredibly upset that schools won't admit you based on your repeated assurances that you're just the smartest little cookie in the jar, but you haven't proposed anything remotely close to a decent alternative to the LSAT.

I have applied to many T1 schools. Most of them offered me scholarship even though my numbers are way below both medians. That tells me many schools are actually trying to admit students beyond the numbers as best as they could. To those schools, I appreciate their efforts and willingness to take the risk by admitting me.

However, I don't appreciate your condescending attitude and your worship of LSAT God. I don't need to propose an alternative nor your permission to criticize the stupid test.

[cavalier1138]

Actually, those skills are not required by any graduate program to the degree that the LSAT tests them. That's why other tests aren't considered as substitutes.

Look, I get that you're incredibly upset that schools won't admit you based on your repeated assurances that you're just the smartest little cookie in the jar, but you haven't proposed anything remotely close to a decent alternative to the LSAT.

I have applied to many T1 schools. Most of them offered me scholarship even though my numbers are way below both medians. That tells me many schools are actually trying to admit students beyond the numbers as best as they could. To those schools, I appreciate their efforts and willingness to take the risk by admitting me.

However, I don't appreciate your condescending attitude and your worship of LSAT God. I don't need to propose an alternative in order nor your permission to criticize the stupid test.

If you're going to criticize the test and say that it's a bad criterion for admission, then yes, you do need to propose a better one. Otherwise, you're saying that we should stop admitting students to law school altogether until we can figure out how to implement a system that is absolutely perfect and fair in every conceivable way. So put up or shut up (and get back to studying).

Can't speak to your admissions/scholarship offers without more information, but I'd wager that you have additional application factors that change how your numbers are viewed (URM, first-generation college student, etc.). Again, no way to know for sure, but it's extremely rare for students well below both medians to get admission and money at multiple schools, and I don't think that some "brave" adcomms out there are just bucking tradition.

[chicagoburger]

If you're going to criticize the test and say that it's a bad criterion for admission, then yes, you do need to propose a better one. Otherwise, you're saying that we should stop admitting students to law school altogether until we can figure out how to implement a system that is absolutely perfect and fair in every conceivable way. So put up or shut up (and get back to studying). .

I don't like white on this wall because it's ugly.
That doesn't mean that I need to tell you what color I prefer, nor does it mean that I want no color on the wall.